Pew's definitions leave something to be desired. For example, here is
Pew's policy on illegal aliens:The term ‘unauthorized
migrant’ best encompasses the population in our data because many migrants
now enter the country or work using counterfeit documents and thus are not
really ‘undocumented’ in the sense that they have documents, but not
completely legal documents.

"Part of what's going on here is that the stigma associated with not
being part of any religious community has declined... In some parts of the
country, there is still a stigma. But overall, it's not the way it used to
be."

This is definite progress!

When will Utah catch
up and cease to stigmatize the "nones" (and especially the
nonbelievers)?

Other parts of this study mention that the number of atheists and agnostics are
dramatically increasing, approximately 13 million people in the U.S. Now that is
some of the best news I have heard in a long time. That gives me incredible hope
for the future of this country."A man is accepted into a church for
what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows"Mark Twain

the earth is only 6,000 years old, Woman don’t have a say as to
their own bodies, that only “they” speak for God, that
the purple TellyTubby is gay, and tend to be exclusive, rather than
inclusive, to which they can’t even get along nicely amongst
themselves…let alone with “unbelievers”.

“I
like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike
your Christ.” ~ Mahatma Gandhi

"Yeah we're seeing how California is doing
while under the governance of the nones.And it's economic fault lines
are only beginning to emerge."

I cannot even imagine where a
person would get such an uninformed idea.

First of all, the number of
"unaffiliated" in California is about equal to the national average
reported in this article (20%).

Second, California is characterized
by about an 8% higher population of Catholics. Mormons in California are just a
touch higher than the national average.

Those are the key differences
between California and the Nation as regards religious affiliation.

Third, The Current Governor, Jerry Brown, is Catholic.His predecessor,
Arnold Schwarzenegger, was Catholic.His predecessor, Gray Davis, was
Catholic.His predecessor, Pete Wilson, was Presbyterian.His
predecessor, George Deukmejian, was Armenian Apostolic.Jerry Brown
preceded him (Catholic), and Brown's predecessor was Ronald Reagan, who was
Disciples of Christ and later Presbyterian. That's going back to 1980.

So you cannot possibly blame California's economic problems on
religiously "unaffiliated" people. You would have to blame it on the
last decade of leadership by Catholics and Mormons!

"Yeah we're seeing how California is doing
while under the governance of the nones.And it's economic fault lines
are only beginning to emerge."

Now let's consider this:

Arizona and Illinois have the Golden State beat for being in a worse
economic and fiscal mess than California.

Arizona is represented by a
bunch of Catholics and a Mormon. Not a single "unaffiliated" among them.
Mormons comprise over 4% of the population in Arizona (double the national
average). Unaffiliated in AZ equals the national average.

Illinois is
represented by a mix of Catholics and Protestants. Not a single
"unaffiliated" among them. Illinois has a LOWER percentage of
"unaffiliated" than the national average. Catholic, Methodist, and
Baptist dominate Illinois.

So where on earth would someone get the
absurd idea that religiously "unaffiliated" peoples can be blamed for
economic problems in any state, at any time, ever?

I read
the Arizona post afterwards. It had not come up yet when I posted.

Frankly, I find the whole concept foolish (for good or bad). I just
don’t think religion plays much into the question of good governance
because I think politicians are rarely that faithful (there are exceptions of
course).

My take on it all? There are good and bad fiscal policies
by both the religious and the non-religious.

I have been religious all my life and know thousands of
like-minded folks. I do not know of anyone who believes as your say we do.
Perhaps you would like to rephrase every item in your list to be closer to the
truth? I am pro-choice, but I qualify it to be 'early choice' and
every religious person that I know believes that way. We also believe that
there are consequences for our actions and that God is good with that. We
believe in the scriptures, but we also know that God's children have
foibles and personal opinions about what they interpret for themselves
concerning principles they are taught. There are also cultural influences on
such interpretation. God asks that we confess our own sins and not those of
others. He asks us to be perfect, knowing that we cannot be perfect, YET! He
teaches us of consequences. "Go thy way and sin no more" and "Thou
shalt not bear false witness" come to my mind as I read your post. Those are
good for each of us to remember and practice.